alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020209EN.01002801.xml

| 22.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/28

---

Order of the General Court of 30 April 2020 — ArcelorMittal Bremen v Commission

(Case T-623/19) (1)

(Action for failure to act - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Decision 2011/278/EU - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances - Amendment of Germany’s national allocation table for 2013-2020 - Significant increase in capacity - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 209/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ArcelorMittal Bremen GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and L. Buschmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and A. Becker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully refrained from taking a decision concerning the total annual quantity of emissions quotas that must be granted free of charge in response to a significant increase in capacity by a sub-installation of the applicant with a product benchmark for hot metal and, in the alternative, an application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision allegedly adopted by the Commission on 19 July 2019 concerning the giving of notice to the applicant on 1 July 2019.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Each part shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each part shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

---
#### SWEZEY, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF BATAVIA, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 2, 1907.)

Action by Hiram Swezey against the village of Batavia.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, with $10' costs and disbursements.

ICRUSB, J.,

dissents, upon the ground that it is not shown that the defendant refused or willfully neglected to comply with the judgment, and also that the fine is.excessive.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-21-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,640
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,781
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (692)
<INVENTORY>                                     42,551
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                99,906
<PP&E>                                          38,938
<DEPRECIATION>                                (20,279)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 372,511
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,650
<BONDS>                                        274,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,223
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   372,511
<SALES>                                        130,267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               130,267
<CGS>                                           84,652
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,586
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,061
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,590
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,528
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,062
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,062
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-80539, 333-1854 and 333-68323 on
Form S-8, and No. 333-75386 on Form S-3 of META Group, Inc. of our report dated March 17, 2004 (which report expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company's adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets")
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of META Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Stamford,
Connecticut
March 29, 2004

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Douglas R. Young, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NeoMagic Corporation.



Date: June 10, 2005



By:

/s/ Douglas R. YoungName:

Douglas R. YoungTitle:

Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-19057, 333-27977, and 333-136316) of our reports dated March 13, 2009 related to the consolidated financial statements and selected financial ratios and other data of Medallion Financial
Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 and for each of the three years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008 and on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008 and
our report dated March 13, 2009 related to the financial statements of Medallion Bank as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 and for each of the three years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, which appear in the Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Medallion Financial Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2008.

Weiser LLP

New York, New York

March 13, 2009
# C_2020095EN.01003302.xml

| 23.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/33

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — Silgan International and Silgan Closures v Commission

(Case T-808/19 R)

(Interim measures - Competition - Request for information - Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)

(2020/C 95/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Silgan International Holdings BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Silgan Closures GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: D. Seeliger, H. Wollmann, R. Grafunder, B. Meyrind and E. Venot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Ernst, L. Wildpanner, A. Keidel and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2019) 8501 final of 20 November 2019 relating to proceedings under Article 18(3) and Article 24(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40522 — Metal packaging).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
#### In the Matter of Adriano D., Respondent, v Yolanda A., Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 150]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Diane Kiesel, J.), entered on or about June 23, 2010, which, after a fact-finding hearing, awarded petitioner father custody of the parties’ child with visitation to respondent mother, including every other weekend, one month during the summer and alternate holidays, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly determined that the child’s best interests would be served by awarding custody to petitioner *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). The record shows that petitioner has provided a healthy, stable environment, and a comfortable home. He is able to provide for the child financially and emotionally and demonstrated that he has been actively involved in the child’s education and special needs.

*449Respondent, however, suffers from emotional issues into which she lacks insight preventing her from putting the child’s needs before her own. The record demonstrates that respondent exercises poor judgment in disciplining the child and that she has not been involved with his education. Further, respondent’s evasiveness regarding her income and employment history raises doubts about her ability to provide for the child financially.

Contrary to respondent’s contention, the court did not rely primarily on the forensic psychologist’s report in making its determination, but rather, weighed all the relevant factors in deciding what is in the best interest of the child *(see Eschbach,*56 NY2d at 171-173).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzales, RJ., Tom, Catterson, Renwick and Richter, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: In re Fort Bend Independent School District

Appellate case number: 01-18-01113-CV

Trial court case number: 18-DCV-251366

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend County

Date motion filed: November 1, 2019

Party filing motion: Real Party in Interest

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

In this Court’s October 3, 2019 opinion, we directed the trial court to vacate its July 26, 

2019 order appointing the Guardian ad Litem and its August 6, 2019 order reappointing the Master 

in Chancery and to issue an order dismissing the underlying proceeding. We are confident the trial 

court will promptly comply. Accordingly, our writ of mandamus will issue only if the trial court 

does not comply within thirty days of the date of this order.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Landau

Date: December 3, 2019
# C_2019139EN.01006301.xml

| 15.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/63

---

Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-59/19)

(2019/C 139/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicant, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicant, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law and a plea in the alternative, alleging harm suffered by the applicant for which liability rests with the Council of the European Union.

The main plea alleges that the disputed restrictive measures, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, it is claimed that those measures infringe the obligation to state reasons as provided in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union; and, second, that they infringe the applicant’s right to property and his right to respect for his reputation. It is claimed that that infringement has directly caused significant non-material and material harm to the applicant consisting in damage to his reputation, suffered following his inclusion in the sanction list, in respect of which he is entitled to compensation.

The plea in the alternative alleges the existence of a system of strict liability under EU law.

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 15 Consent of Registered Independent Public Accounting Firm The Supervisory Board
   SAP Aktiengesellschaft Systeme, Anwendungen, Produkte in der Datenverarbeitung: We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos.
333-60399, 333-65083, 333-30380, 333-41762, 333-63496, 333-63464 and 333-102564) of SAP
Aktiengesellschaft Systeme, Anwendungen, Produkte in der Datenverarbeitung and subsidiaries (SAP
AG) of our report dated March 9, 2005, except for Note 37
which is as of March 22, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of SAP AG as
of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December
31, 2004, and the information contained in the related financial statement schedule, which report
appears in the December 31, 2004, annual report on Form 20-F of SAP AG. /s/ KPMG DEUTSCHE TREUHAND-GESELLSCHAFT
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT WIRTSCHAFTSPRÜFUNGSGESELLSCHAFT Mannheim, Germany
March 22, 2005
Abatement Order filed November 20, 2018 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00888-CR

____________

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

GABRIEL SERNA GARCIA, Appellee

On Appeal from the 400th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 17-DCR-079362

ABATEMENT ORDER

The State challenges the trial court’s order granting appellee’s motion to 

suppress. Although the State requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, 

none have been filed. When the losing party on a motion to suppress requests 

findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court is required to make them.

State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 698–99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 
Accordingly, the trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of 

fact and conclusions of law on the granting of appellee’s motion to suppress and

have a supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings filed with the clerk of 

this court within thirty days of the date of this order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will 

also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party.

PER CURIAM
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20549 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JESUS CARDONA-MERIDA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-912-1

-------------------- April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Cardona-Merida has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Cardona-Merida has received copies of counsel’s motion and brief but has not filed a response. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH DISTRICT, AT TEXARKANA

No. 06-15-00050-CV

In the Matter of Y.G., a Juvenile

(No. 94-J-2015 IN 272ND DISTRICT COURT OF BRAZOS COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

CLERK'S RECORD

FILING

$10.00

$0.00

$195.00

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

PATRICK GENDRON, APPT ATTY

PATRICK GENDRON, APPT ATTY

PATRICK GENDRON, APPT ATTY

Balance of costs owing to the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK OF THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE 

STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct 

copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF 

TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, 

as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 

witness my hand and the Seal of 

the COURT OF APPEALS for 

the Sixth District of Texas, this 

December 18, 2015.

DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK

By ___________________________

Deputy
In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 24, 2011. 

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 990) entitled 

‘‘An Act to provide for an additional temporary extension of 

programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes.’’, do 

pass with the following 

AMENDMENT: 

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: 

1 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AU2 THORIZATION OF PROGRAMS UNDER THE 

3 SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE SMALL BUSI4 NESS INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1 of the Act entitled ‘‘An 

6 Act to extend temporarily certain authorities of the Small 

7 Business Administration’’, approved October 10, 2006 

8 (Public Law 109–316; 120 Stat. 1742), as most recently 

9 amended by section 1 of Public Law 112–1 (125 Stat. 3), 

10 is amended by striking ‘‘May 31, 2011’’ each place it ap11 pears and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2011’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by sub13 section (a) shall take effect on May 30, 2011. 
2 

•S 990 EAH 

1 SEC. 2. COMPETITIVE SELECTION PROCEDURES FOR SBIR 

2 AND STTR PROGRAMS. 

3 Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638) 

4 is amended by inserting after subsection (r) the following: 

5 ‘‘(s) COMPETITIVE SELECTION PROCEDURES FOR

6 SBIR AND STTR PROGRAMS.—All funds awarded, appro7 priated, or otherwise made available in accordance with 

8 subsection (f) or (n) must be awarded pursuant to competi9 tive and merit-based selection procedures.’’. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 990 

AMENDMENT
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 USCSECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Medallion Financial Corp. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as ofthe dates and for the periods expressed in the Report. 

By: /s/ Larry D. Hall

Senior Vice President and 

Chief Financial Officer 

Date: March 14, 2018
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 1 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That (a) when the Senate adjourns or re3 cesses on any day from Wednesday, January 5, 2011, 

4 through Monday, January 10, 2011, on a motion offered 

5 pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority 

6 Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned or recessed 

7 until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, January 25, 2011, or until the 

8 time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this con9 current resolution, whichever occurs first; and 

10 (b) when the House adjourns on the legislative day 

11 of Wednesday, January 12, 2011, on a motion offered 

12 pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority 

13 Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. 

14 on Tuesday, January 18, 2011, or until the time of any 

15 reassembly pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolu16 tion, whichever occurs first; and when the House adjourns 

17 on any legislative day from Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 

18 through Friday, January 28, 2011, on a motion offered 

19 pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority 
2 

†SCON 1 ES 

1 Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. 

2 on Tuesday, February 8, 2011, or until the time of any 

3 reassembly pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolu4 tion, whichever occurs first. 

5 SEC. 2. (a) The Majority Leader of the Senate, or 

6 his designee, after consultation with the Minority Leader 

7 of the Senate, or his designee, shall notify the Members 

8 of the Senate to reassemble at such place and time as he 

9 may designate if, in his opinion, the public interest shall 

10 warrant it. 

11 (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), 

12 when the Senate recesses or adjourns on a motion offered 

13 pursuant to this subsection by its Majority Leader or his 

14 designee, the Senate shall again stand recessed or ad15 journed pursuant to the first section of this concurrent 

16 resolution. 

17 SEC. 3. The Speaker or his designee, after consulta18 tion with the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify 

19 Members of the House to reassemble at such place and 
3 

†SCON 1 ES 

1 time as he may designate if, in his opinion, the public in2 terest shall warrant it. 

Passed the Senate January 5, 2011. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 1 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional recess or adjournment 

of Representatives. of the Senate and an adjournment of the House
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1
                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



         Pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, the undersigned officer of Renaissance Learning, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certifies that:

         (1)      the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
                  ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with
                  the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


Dated: November 5, 2002


                                         /s/ Terrance D. Paul
                                         -------------------------------
                                         Name:  Terrance D. Paul
                                         Title:  Chief Executive Officer